Madhya Pradesh High Court directs strict action against officials for manipulating revenue records, emphasizing duty to protect government land under Article 226.
Jharkhand High Court mandates accurate online entry of land records and issuance of Khatiyan and rent receipts, affirming that digital records must mirror official documents.
Bombay High Court holds that clerical errors in consolidation schemes can be corrected under Section 31A even after decades, if possession was never transferred and compensation never paid.
The Rajasthan High Court holds that challenges to land acquisition awards after 27 years are barred by delay and laches, affirming finality of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that prior acquisition awards in the same revenue estate must be considered for market value determination under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that landowners may object only to the three grounds under Section 15 of the LARR Act 2013; technical clearances are not mandatory for objection submission.
Madras High Court holds that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 entitles landowners to seek parity in compensation when others in similar circumstances receive higher awards.
Bombay High Court holds that land must be lawfully acquired before utilization for public projects; officers cannot shift burden to landowners.
Rajasthan High Court holds that no coercive action can be taken under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to landholders.
Bombay High Court holds that irrigated land acquired for public project must be compensated at Rs. 5500/are, rejecting arbitrary valuations and affirming statutory entitlement to escalation.
Karnataka High Court holds that land compensation cannot be equalized across adjoining villages; market value must be determined by local transactions and guidance values.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that mere long-term possession of government land, without title or regularization, does not confer landowner status under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
Bombay High Court holds that irrigated land with trees and wells must be compensated at market rate, not statutory minimum, reinforcing fair valuation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Rajasthan High Court holds that possession cannot be disturbed during pendency of revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, reinforcing procedural fairness in land disputes.
Supreme Court holds that fraudulent compensation awards to some landowners do not invalidate awards to innocent beneficiaries; individualized assessment required.